Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 01:37:01 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, shuah@kernel.org,
        linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH 0/1] SGX self test fails
Message-ID: <YJB7DZHDeNujIY+F@kernel.org>
References: <20210429183952.22797-1-tim.gardner@canonical.com>
 <c0725600-0a00-31dd-2ec3-20d4a86b33c5@intel.com>
 <YJAZjP2k6Aff7wgk@kernel.org>
 <6645d579-57f9-7adf-8a3d-f4fb2316b324@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6645d579-57f9-7adf-8a3d-f4fb2316b324@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 09:39:05AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/3/21 8:41 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> $ ls -l /dev/sgx_enclave
> >> crw------- 1 dave dave 10, 125 Apr 28 11:32 /dev/sgx_enclave
> >> $ ./test_sgx
> >> 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000002000 0x03
> >> 0x0000000000002000 0x0000000000001000 0x05
> >> 0x0000000000003000 0x0000000000003000 0x03
> >> SUCCESS
> >>
> >> *But*, is that OK?  Should we be happily creating a PROT_EXEC mapping on
> >> a ugo-x file?  Why were we respecting noexec on the filesystem but not
> >> ugo-x on the file?
> > Yeah, this supports my earlier response:
> > 
> > "EPERM  The prot argument asks for PROT_EXEC but the mapped area
> >  belongs to a file on a filesystem that was mounted no-exec."
> > https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/mmap.2.html
> > 
> > I guess the right model is to think just as "anonymous memory"
> > with equivalent access control semantics after succesfully
> > opened for read and write.
> 
> I guess I'll answer my own question: The "x" bit on file permissions
> really only controls the ability for the file to be execve()'d, but has
> no bearing on the ability for an executable *mapping* to be created.
> This is existing VFS behavior and is not specific to SGX.

Yeah, that's nicely put it into one sentence :-)

> I think I'll just send a patch to pull that warning out.

/Jarkko